Nicol Epple ENG 764 Dr. Williamson Daily Writings-Wk 2, Wed. Performance in Hemans’ Poetry In that poetry calls to the reader to “do” rather than be, poetry is meant to be performative. How does one feel moved when reading the poem aloud? How does one feel to move their bodies in conjunction with the verse? For me, what stands out here is “feel.” Poetry is not to be read like a store keeper’s ledger; poetry stirs the intellect, emotion, and imagination. While reading the poems in Hemans’ collection I felt moved as such. Actually, within the time-frame of, giving myself over to the verse, I felt moved in a diverse range of emotions. “The Homes of England” drew out the proudness of patriotism; “The Lady of the Castle” stirs imaginings that break one’s heart; and with “The Sunbeam” how could anyone feel but lifted from reading, “Sunbeam! What gift hath the world like thee?”? The latter poem beings such feel-good feelings; am I living in a Hallmark commercial? The poem that I would like to discuss is “The Lady of the Castle.” This poem embodies the archetype of the fallen woman. How can it not when Hemans set up the beauty of a noble woman then writes “Of woman’s shame . . . She fell!” (16)? And what is the reason for this condemnation? The traditional, typical reason—“That mother left that child!” (17). At this point in the poem I wonder where the tale will go. It reads as a narrative with its very long stanzas with dramatic lines. I am caught up in the sweetness of the girl and feeling her loss of a mother. And then, she returns. Hope rises. Like the woman who sinned and approached Jesus, kneeled at his feet and wept, so does Isaure’s mother. She falls at her daughter’s feet and begs for mercy. At this moment in reading another popular figure that comes to mind—the Prodigal Son from scripture. Isaure had wept for her mother as the Father had wept over his prodigal son. And like the Father, Isaure reached out in reconciliation. But for Ermengarde, “twas too late” (94). The tragedy is that the prodigal woman in this poem receives no redemption. I want a different ending. I want the fallen woman to prevail. The End Notes for this poem explains that “The Lady in the Castle” is the only poem to have been in what was to be a collection titles, Portrait Gallery. Why did Hemans choose first to write about a “fallen woman”? How can we read this poem without thinking of this woman in the fallen state from which she does not leave? This poem elicits empathy for the deserted daughter, even empathy when her mother mourns her “sin.” But her consequential death leaves me distraught, dissatisfied, and angry. Angry that the woman left, angry that she died and was not restored to her daughter, angry that Hemans wrote this ending! I am wondering if she meant to enforce the archetype or am I missing a totally different reading? Performance. The poem comes to life and moves the reader through many emotions, what more could a poet want?
Nicol Epple ENG 764 Dr. Williamson Tuesday, June 10, 2014 Corinne’s Legacy Many inheritances change hands in Corinne. The most obvious are those mentioned explicitly and tangibly: the monetary inheritance from Lord Nelvil to his son, Oswald, and the inheritance expected by Madame d’Arbigny. From monetary inheritances one’s life can be made sure, secure, perhaps even offer opportunities to change the course. But within Corinne there is an inheritance more enduring than one of money; it is one of legacy. The culmination of the narrative, and consequently, Corinne’s life, is the passing her legacy. This legacy is of Corinne herself. Lord Nelvil secretly conspires to have his daughter Juliet, Corinne’s niece, visit Corinne. The experience is so pleasant and profitable for Juliet that Lord Nelvil sees to it that Juliet visits with Corinne every day. Though in the last days of her physical demise, Corinne fights fatigue and discomfort to teach Juliet “all of her talents” (Stael 396). When questioned Juliet discloses, “I want to go there every day. She promised to teach me everything she knows. She says she wants me to be like Corinne” (396). Surely, Corinne wanted to leave part of herself in her niece. Arguably, her intention was that she would be alive to Lord Nelvil, her sister whom she loved, and her niece for whom she felt affection after she dies. To this end, Corinne taught Juliet all of her talents “as a legacy she wanted to leave while still alive” (396). With Juliet resembling Corinne so closely, no doubt Corinne would seem to be still living. I posit that Corinne did not want herself to “live on” in Juliet for vanity sake, but for the sentiment of having lived a life worth remembering, which to Corinne is one of passion. However, when Corinne tells her sister, Lucille, that her personal wish is that “Oswald should find again in you and in his daughter some traces of my influence, and that at least he may never enjoy a feeling without recalling Corinne” (398), the narcissistic tone screams so loudly considering Corinne to have sentiments of altruism seems a misappropriation. But I read Corinne that yes, she is a self-centered character, but she is also one who feels deeply and passing on the legacy of her transcendent view of life is her life’s work. Indeed, in her last song she writes, “when spring comes, remember how I loved its beauty . . . Remember my verses . . . for my soul is stamped on them” (402). Corinne’s verses are her legacy the memory of which is entwined with nature itself. Properzia Rossi, a female sculptor of whom Felicia Hemans titles a poem with her name, was like Corinne, a woman who dies from the consequences of unrequited love. One line depicts what I imagine could have been uttered on Corinne’s dying lips, “Yet it may be that death/ Shall give my name a power to win such tears/ As would have made life precious” (29). Corinne would have loved her followers and loved ones to be moved to tears in learning of her death and considering her great “influence” upon their lives.
Nicol Epple
ENG 764
Dr. Williamson
June 9, 2014
Week 2-Monday’s Writing The Avoidance of Reducing Corinne
For me, I believe what I need to do so as not to read Corinne in such a way that her narrative is reduced is to be conscious of my thought processes as I read. As I stated in our first writing response, we cannot help but bring to the book all that we have learned and experienced; this becomes our lens. Our class discussion is showing me to think outside of the box. Yay! for that. For even as I am just now learning feminist theory in greater depth I am coming to the understanding that Second Wave of feminism, in particular, reduces ideas and texts to conform within the boundaries of its ethos and creeds. I like the exhortation that Dr. Williamson has been addressing: don’t wear one cloak of theory; rather take the sleeve of one, the collar of another, the hue of one more. Well, that is the paraphrasing of my interpretation of what he is saying. I like to idea of making/forming a composite of consciousness from proper appropriate theories. Oh, no. Am I making my own Creature?
So in engaging with the remaining portions of Corinne, I plan to attempt to be conscious of my own thought processes when reading. And especially, pay close attention to the criticisms that many other feminist scholars have made of Stael’s works. Lokke’s chapter, “’The vast tableau of destinies’: Germaine de Stael’s Corinne, enthusiasm, and melancholy,” elucidates and maps this criticism well. Lokke states that Margaret Fuller believed Stael incapable of deep wisdom “because she cannot live ‘above [her] own heart’ or above her socially defined identity as a woman” (23). Lokke explains that Fuller and Shelley both charged Stael with a lack of self-control and fortitude (23-24). Contemporary feminist scholar Maggie Tulliver even refused to finish reading Corinne after forming judgment of condemnation (Lokke 25). Can we (I) not give Stael a chance?
Stael poses Corinne as genius and transcendent. The problem seems to arise with the conjunction, “and.” I would argue that Fuller wanted Corinne to be a paragon for all women to emulate, but a woman confined by genius alone. Why can a woman not embody genius—the trait historically aligned with men—and transcendence—which when combined with Corinne’s excitable emotion equates to woman’s experience? Because “they” say, critics from Shelley, Fuller, to Gutwirth and Lokke that a woman cannot—should not—embrace emotion that is self-sacrificing or sentimental, for to do so consents to gender-biased stereotypes of women. It is in this that I disagree. Admittedly, I have not yet finished the novel myself, though unlike Tulliver I will. But I want to embrace a feminism that is free. Shelley and Fuller wanted woman free from the hegemony that confined woman positionally in home, Church, State, and culture. I want free from the feminism that holds to a creed that to be free from the former misogyny I, as a woman, must embrace male-gendered stereotypes. Can a person not simply be who they intrinsically are?
Not having finished the novel I cannot say whether Stael is making the argument I just held to in her narrative. But it is apparent that Corinne is an exceptional woman, a female genius who expresses her emotions exceptionally. I will give Corinne a chance which is most likely result in setting her on a new tableau of destiny, in this critic’s mind anyway.
Nicol Epple
ENG 764
Dr. Williamson
Daily Writings-Wk 2, Wed.
Performance in Hemans’ Poetry
In that poetry calls to the reader to “do” rather than be, poetry is meant to be performative. How does one feel moved when reading the poem aloud? How does one feel to move their bodies in conjunction with the verse? For me, what stands out here is “feel.” Poetry is not to be read like a store keeper’s ledger; poetry stirs the intellect, emotion, and imagination. While reading the poems in Hemans’ collection I felt moved as such. Actually, within the time-frame of, giving myself over to the verse, I felt moved in a diverse range of emotions. “The Homes of England” drew out the proudness of patriotism; “The Lady of the Castle” stirs imaginings that break one’s heart; and with “The Sunbeam” how could anyone feel but lifted from reading, “Sunbeam! What gift hath the world like thee?”? The latter poem beings such feel-good feelings; am I living in a Hallmark commercial?
The poem that I would like to discuss is “The Lady of the Castle.” This poem embodies the archetype of the fallen woman. How can it not when Hemans set up the beauty of a noble woman then writes “Of woman’s shame . . . She fell!” (16)? And what is the reason for this condemnation? The traditional, typical reason—“That mother left that child!” (17). At this point in the poem I wonder where the tale will go. It reads as a narrative with its very long stanzas with dramatic lines. I am caught up in the sweetness of the girl and feeling her loss of a mother.
And then, she returns. Hope rises. Like the woman who sinned and approached Jesus, kneeled at his feet and wept, so does Isaure’s mother. She falls at her daughter’s feet and begs for mercy. At this moment in reading another popular figure that comes to mind—the Prodigal Son from scripture. Isaure had wept for her mother as the Father had wept over his prodigal son. And like the Father, Isaure reached out in reconciliation. But for Ermengarde, “twas too late” (94). The tragedy is that the prodigal woman in this poem receives no redemption. I want a different ending. I want the fallen woman to prevail.
The End Notes for this poem explains that “The Lady in the Castle” is the only poem to have been in what was to be a collection titles, Portrait Gallery. Why did Hemans choose first to write about a “fallen woman”? How can we read this poem without thinking of this woman in the fallen state from which she does not leave?
This poem elicits empathy for the deserted daughter, even empathy when her mother mourns her “sin.” But her consequential death leaves me distraught, dissatisfied, and angry. Angry that the woman left, angry that she died and was not restored to her daughter, angry that Hemans wrote this ending! I am wondering if she meant to enforce the archetype or am I missing a totally different reading?
Performance. The poem comes to life and moves the reader through many emotions, what more could a poet want?
Nicol Epple
ENG 764
Dr. Williamson
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Corinne’s Legacy
Many inheritances change hands in Corinne. The most obvious are those mentioned explicitly and tangibly: the monetary inheritance from Lord Nelvil to his son, Oswald, and the inheritance expected by Madame d’Arbigny. From monetary inheritances one’s life can be made sure, secure, perhaps even offer opportunities to change the course. But within Corinne there is an inheritance more enduring than one of money; it is one of legacy. The culmination of the narrative, and consequently, Corinne’s life, is the passing her legacy. This legacy is of Corinne herself.
Lord Nelvil secretly conspires to have his daughter Juliet, Corinne’s niece, visit Corinne. The experience is so pleasant and profitable for Juliet that Lord Nelvil sees to it that Juliet visits with Corinne every day. Though in the last days of her physical demise, Corinne fights fatigue and discomfort to teach Juliet “all of her talents” (Stael 396). When questioned Juliet discloses, “I want to go there every day. She promised to teach me everything she knows. She says she wants me to be like Corinne” (396). Surely, Corinne wanted to leave part of herself in her niece. Arguably, her intention was that she would be alive to Lord Nelvil, her sister whom she loved, and her niece for whom she felt affection after she dies. To this end, Corinne taught Juliet all of her talents “as a legacy she wanted to leave while still alive” (396). With Juliet resembling Corinne so closely, no doubt Corinne would seem to be still living.
I posit that Corinne did not want herself to “live on” in Juliet for vanity sake, but for the sentiment of having lived a life worth remembering, which to Corinne is one of passion. However, when Corinne tells her sister, Lucille, that her personal wish is that “Oswald should find again in you and in his daughter some traces of my influence, and that at least he may never enjoy a feeling without recalling Corinne” (398), the narcissistic tone screams so loudly considering Corinne to have sentiments of altruism seems a misappropriation. But I read Corinne that yes, she is a self-centered character, but she is also one who feels deeply and passing on the legacy of her transcendent view of life is her life’s work. Indeed, in her last song she writes, “when spring comes, remember how I loved its beauty . . . Remember my verses . . . for my soul is stamped on them” (402). Corinne’s verses are her legacy the memory of which is entwined with nature itself.
Properzia Rossi, a female sculptor of whom Felicia Hemans titles a poem with her name, was like Corinne, a woman who dies from the consequences of unrequited love. One line depicts what I imagine could have been uttered on Corinne’s dying lips, “Yet it may be that death/ Shall give my name a power to win such tears/ As would have made life precious” (29). Corinne would have loved her followers and loved ones to be moved to tears in learning of her death and considering her great “influence” upon their lives.
Nicol Epple
ENG 764
Dr. Williamson
June 9, 2014
Week 2-Monday’s Writing
The Avoidance of Reducing Corinne
For me, I believe what I need to do so as not to read Corinne in such a way that her narrative is reduced is to be conscious of my thought processes as I read. As I stated in our first writing response, we cannot help but bring to the book all that we have learned and experienced; this becomes our lens. Our class discussion is showing me to think outside of the box. Yay! for that. For even as I am just now learning feminist theory in greater depth I am coming to the understanding that Second Wave of feminism, in particular, reduces ideas and texts to conform within the boundaries of its ethos and creeds. I like the exhortation that Dr. Williamson has been addressing: don’t wear one cloak of theory; rather take the sleeve of one, the collar of another, the hue of one more. Well, that is the paraphrasing of my interpretation of what he is saying. I like to idea of making/forming a composite of consciousness from proper appropriate theories. Oh, no. Am I making my own Creature?
So in engaging with the remaining portions of Corinne, I plan to attempt to be conscious of my own thought processes when reading. And especially, pay close attention to the criticisms that many other feminist scholars have made of Stael’s works. Lokke’s chapter, “’The vast tableau of destinies’: Germaine de Stael’s Corinne, enthusiasm, and melancholy,” elucidates and maps this criticism well. Lokke states that Margaret Fuller believed Stael incapable of deep wisdom “because she cannot live ‘above [her] own heart’ or above her socially defined identity as a woman” (23). Lokke explains that Fuller and Shelley both charged Stael with a lack of self-control and fortitude (23-24). Contemporary feminist scholar Maggie Tulliver even refused to finish reading Corinne after forming judgment of condemnation (Lokke 25). Can we (I) not give Stael a chance?
Stael poses Corinne as genius and transcendent. The problem seems to arise with the conjunction, “and.” I would argue that Fuller wanted Corinne to be a paragon for all women to emulate, but a woman confined by genius alone. Why can a woman not embody genius—the trait historically aligned with men—and transcendence—which when combined with Corinne’s excitable emotion equates to woman’s experience? Because “they” say, critics from Shelley, Fuller, to Gutwirth and Lokke that a woman cannot—should not—embrace emotion that is self-sacrificing or sentimental, for to do so consents to gender-biased stereotypes of women. It is in this that I disagree. Admittedly, I have not yet finished the novel myself, though unlike Tulliver I will. But I want to embrace a feminism that is free. Shelley and Fuller wanted woman free from the hegemony that confined woman positionally in home, Church, State, and culture. I want free from the feminism that holds to a creed that to be free from the former misogyny I, as a woman, must embrace male-gendered stereotypes. Can a person not simply be who they intrinsically are?
Not having finished the novel I cannot say whether Stael is making the argument I just held to in her narrative. But it is apparent that Corinne is an exceptional woman, a female genius who expresses her emotions exceptionally. I will give Corinne a chance which is most likely result in setting her on a new tableau of destiny, in this critic’s mind anyway.